The end of the A2s in USMC training

[GatorFarmer]

It made the paper. The first several companies of recruits are already training with A4s rather than A2s. Starting in October, the new fiscal year's opening, all recruits will train with the A4s. For those that don't know, the M16A2 is a largely retired weapon these days, the Army issues M4 carbines and the Marines issue a limited number of carbines and larger numbers of M16A4 rifles.

The A4 is, long story short, an M16 with a flat top upper to assist in mounting optics and railed handguards. The recruits have to learn a few new movements in their manual of arms, since it is more difficult to get a good slap noise on the handguards of the A4 apparently.

Marksmanship training with the A4s will still be with iron sights, so they'll have carry handles on them during training.

It's strange to see the last of the A2s go. They'd gotten to be a familiar sight, seeing them being carried in parade formations and listening to the pop pop pop of them on the range each morning. I've one of the earliest Colt commercial (semi auto only) rifles that had A2 features mixed with A1 features that left the factory during the transition.

It's now a historic weapon I suppose, just like the Garand, the M1 carbine, and other past military small arms. It probably never got as much fan fare, and M4 style carbines likely sell in much great numbers, but untold thousands of shooters probably fired a rifle for the first time in military training with an A2 in the past quarter century and thousands of the commercial variants of the rifle are used in rifle matches and for sport and recreation.

Seems like only yesterday that I was a boy and the gun magazines had long articles about the "new" M16 variant, which was the A2. Now it is being retired from one of its last duties, that of training new shooters.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

It's about time we stopped training for marksmanship with long-range weapons. The A2 was a step in the right direction, but clearly not far enough. The A4 goes a step farther. There is no need for long-range shooting except in oddball places we'd never fight a war in, like parts of the US, parts of Russia, Afghanistan, . . . Wait a minute. We ARE fighting in Afghanistan. Maybe you should just ignore my post.

 

[slowburninsteve]

I remember reading a while back about the lack of velocity in the AR format due to the shortened barrel of the A4, and a supposed reduction of "knock-down" power that was being experienced in either Iraq or Afganistan. Is there really that much loss in velocity, or was this just someone's opinion? As a proud owner of a Stag Arms A4 I'd like to know.....
Steve

 

[GatorFarmer]

M16A4s aren't any shorter than an M16A2. They're still a long range, relatively weapon. In theory, good to about 600 meters. The
Marines stuck with these and make only limited use of the M4 carbine series. The every Marine a rifleman credo is still taken seriously to the point that the SCAR-H has now seen limited adoption. The story goes that there were so many kills involving headshots in Iraq at one point, that questions were raised as to whether people were being executed. In fact it was simply that the now widespread issue of optics allowed such precise hits to become common.

The general fix for shorter barrels on AR variants is to use heavier bullets.

 

[n4zov]

The U.S. military is using so many variations of the M16 plus other odd ball rifles thrown into the mix that I'm not sure the Pentagon even knows what is actually in the field! Is there a site that explains clearly and concisely what rifles are being issued and by whom? I'd ask about optics too but that would just confuse me even more.

 

[Ron H.]

Sir, that's interesting. The M16A2 was just starting to come online when I enlisted in 1984. We saw a few 'A2s in demonstrations and such in boot camp, but carried and qualified with 'A1s. In ITS (Infantry Training School), we were issued 'A2s. When I got to my first duty station with the 4th Marines on Okinawa, we still had 'A1s--got 'A2s in about mid-'85.

The mid-'80s was an interesting period in terms of equipment. The 'A2 replaced the 'A1, kevlar "Fritz" helmets replaced the old steel pots, the M9 replaced the 1911A1, the Humvee replaced the M151A1 jeep, kevlar flak jackets replaced the old '50s-era things, the M249 SAW was introduced, and probably some other things as well.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

 

[michael thornton]

well back in the day you got a m14 in boot camp, then a m16 when you got to se asia i never could understand that

 

[GatorFarmer]

The U.S. military is using so many variations of the M16 plus other odd ball rifles thrown into the mix that I'm not sure the Pentagon even knows what is actually in the field! Is there a site that explains clearly and concisely what rifles are being issued and by whom? I'd ask about optics too but that would just confuse me even more.

Wikipedia or militarymorons.com can be helpful, as oddly enough, are Japanese collectors of 1/6 scale action figures and military modeler hobbyists.

The last of the A2s will be with Guard units in the States, though deploying units will get M4s.

There were still A1s, filled with lead or cement or some such, being used for training at Quantico as late as last year. They were in a room with the CPR dummies.

Most of the exotic stuff is used by special operations units. Sometimes items are unit purchased. SF units in Afghanistan even have different uniforms in some cases, being seen not only with HK416s but with Crye multicam.

Wartime tends to make for a wider range of weapons being fielded, at least in small numbers.

 

[semperfi71]

It'll be good when they get rid of all of the M16 variants and got to a real combat weapon.

 

[Bullseye 2620]

The general fix for shorter barrels on AR variants is to use heavier bullets.

Gator,

Such as?

Thanks.


Bullseye

 

[Harrison]

It'll be good when they get rid of all of the M16 variants and got to a real combat weapon.

With all due respect, what real combat rifle? The M-14 that lasted all of about 7 years, The M-1 Garand lasted well less than 20 as general issue. The M-16 has been our issue rifle for 45 years and is still going strong. The only long arm in our history that lasted longer was the muzzle loading smooth bore musket. As far as accuracy goes, neither the 1903 Springfield, M-1 Garand or M-14 can beat the M-16 out to 600 yards. Special Ops in quite a few countries other than the U.S. have used the M-16 and its variants. I would say it is a real combat rifle.

 

[deralte]

Its not hard to figure out how young most of the respondents are . When I started in the Army we first qualified with the 03A3 Springfield and later transitioned to the M1 Garand. We also had to qualify with the M1 carbine, BAR, and 1911. That was a long time ago.

 

[GatorFarmer]

Gator,

Such as?

Thanks.


Bullseye

Hornady TAP or Black Hills JHPs in the 75 to 77 gr range are popular choices in terms of commercial offerings.

The Army's solution is a bit different and is the relatively new (circa 1/4 billion rounds ordered up in June) M855A1. The Marines have a different round entirely for deployment called the SOST. I don't know of any M855A1 being sold commercially yet.

 

[Harrison]

I read that the Army's 885 is a 77gr Sierra MK, with a cannular. Don't know if that is true. A friend that is with a reserve SF unit claims that is so.

 

[Bullseye 2620]

Hornady TAP or Black Hills JHPs in the 75 to 77 gr range are popular choices in terms of commercial offerings.

The Army's solution is a bit different and is the relatively new (circa 1/4 billion rounds ordered up in June) M855A1. The Marines have a different round entirely for deployment called the SOST. I don't know of any M855A1 being sold commercially yet.

Do you know how the Hornady or BH rounds group when shot out of a 16" S&W M&P barrel with the 1:9 twist?

Thanks, Gator.


Bullseye

 

[straightshooter1]

Harrison is certainly right about the accuracy of the various M-16
(and AR) platforms. I sold my very nice, customized M1-A shortly after the ARs began dominating the various rifle competitions.

A guy named Frank White here in Florida slicked my Colt HBAR up, gave it a nice two-stage trigger pull, relieved the pressure on the barrel, etc. and generally did all the things my last Rock River came standard with.

Either that first Colt or my last RRA would beat the stuffing out of an M1-A or the nice Garand I have now.

I think the argument is really over caliber and "stopping power."

I think it is generally agreed the 30 caliber 7.62 is a "better" man-stopper, but I don't care to get shot with either. Shot placement, of course, is important with either.

We had M14s when I first saw sunny SE Asia, later M-16s were issued. Either rifle seemed to do the job.

But, as noted, this is at 600 yards (more or less). The 7.62 is, I think most of us would agree, the better choice for longer shots.

Bob

 

[kraigwy]

As far as accuracy goes, neither the 1903 Springfield, M-1 Garand or M-14 can beat the M-16 out to 600 yards.

Make that 1000 yards, as in the 1000 yard service rifle matches.

 

[vico512]

well back in the day you got a m14 in boot camp, then a m16 when you got to se asia i never could understand that

And, in a slightly earlier day, we were issued M-1 Garands in boot camp. I fired expert with mine on the 'A' range at Camp Matthews. When we got to Pendleton, we were issued M-14s -- I learned to like it a lot, especially offhand on the 200 yd line. Overseas, the Corps was trying to ease us into M-16s, but the early ones were a POS, and I kept my M-14 until I got out in '65.

 

[semperfi71]

I respectfully disagree that the M16 is a better combat weapon than an M1 or an M14.

It will not operate well in dirty conditions. It never did and never will. It's tolerances are too finely fitted.

It may have served for a longer time in the U.S. military but worldwide the M1 has served probably just as long. The M14 was phased out before its real usefulness was realized. It is still being used in the Middle East.

The caliber of the M16, in its 5.56mm variant which is still military issue I think, is too light. It's only usefulness is that the infantryman can carry more ammo although the previous weapons seemed to serve well with less ammo carried per man.

The M1 and the M14 could function in some really dirty, muddy conditions, the M16 cannot. And an infantryman, engaged in steady, heavy combat for long periods of time does not have the time to drop down and clean a rifle.

With the exception of Vietnam, where the M16 did not fare well, the M16 has not been placed into the prolonged types of combat the M1 had been. So the "service period" of the M16 is not a period of the severe type of service the M1 was used in. The M16 may have been used longer but not better.

The M1 definitely became somewhat obsolete, the M14 was not as reliable as the M1, but the M16 has never been a reliable weapon.

I would like to add that the capability of an infantry rifle to be accurate to 600 or even 1,000 yards has not been found to be historically of great need in most modern warfare. The AK47 alone has proven that. The American reliance on infantry rifle "spray-and-pray", artillery, naval gunfire, and airpower has negated a lot of any need for longe range accuracy in a combat rifle.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I carried an M-16 in both the Active Army and the Reserves and National Guard, none graces my collection today, I may have a round or 2 of 5.56
somewhere. The M-1 Garand got us through WWII and Korea, the M-14 suffered from a rather flawed design, i.e., trying to fill too many roles, and there do seem have been some quality control problems. Yes the M-16 in all its forms has been our main battle rifle for 45 years or so and in all those years it has constantly been modified and its ammunition has been endlessly revised. In Vietnam the M-60 gunners often did the real fighting, the main purpose of the riflemen with their M-16s was to point out the targets, in the current conflicts with their longer ranges we are findig something the Italians and Japanese found out decades ago, namely that a military rifle chambered for a cartridge smaller than 7MM lacks long range performance. I have always found the permanently welded gas system of the M-16 a design flaw, the M-1/M-14's was designed to be easily cleaned by the user.